Norway as a political lighthouse project for protecting nature and climate?

(This is basically an excerpt from the main document)

Effective measures at the level of nation-states should come from rich nation-states that in fact have the resources and competence to execute relevant measures. Nation-states that contribute substantially (per inhabitant) to global heating and destruction of nature should have an ethical commitment to act. Often, these nation-states are not among those hit hardest by the effects of global heating.

Measures must have a lighthouse effect guiding and inspiring other rich industrial countries. The measures should also signal to poorer developing countries that their goals for development should be reevaluated. They should not automatically be identical to the goals highlighted by rich industrial countries so far. Norway is used as an example for proposing relevant lighthouse projects and measures at the nationstate level.

People in Norway think that living the way they do today is normal, self-evident and even the right and best way of living. The environmental footprint per inhabitant, however, is several times that necessary for reaching climate goals. This calls for substantial changes in our perception and practicing of “the normal”. Norwegians might object that Norway is a small country with only 5 million inhabitants. The Norwegian contribution to global heating is after all minimal. The great powers must start for getting meaningful results. We are, however, talking about lighthouse effects. Somebody must start. Everybody globally must contribute. Norwegians are likely to say that Norway cannot take the efforts and costs needed to save the world. It is, however, hard to argue that Norwegians should have an obvious right to eat a much larger piece of the cake than others, now, and in the future. The global “cake” is limited.

I will propose measures although the Norwegian understanding of reality both in population and among politicians today is very far from the understanding of reality that I try to present. I still think that it is important to discuss measures being sufficiently efficient in meeting the seriousness of the situation. This might form the basis for processes of rethinking and maturation. This provides images to be kept in mind. Measures should, however, be adjusted according to better knowledge and new experience.

The nation-state Norway has in many ways been both lucky and clever. It is one of the richest countries, per inhabitant, globally because of access to and exploitation of large natural resources. The exploitation of natural resources has to a relatively high degree been beneficial for most of the Norwegian population. This exploitation, however, has not been by nature’s premisses altogether. The world and our world view are changing all the time. What we once thought was a good thing to be proud of, later with new knowledge turns out to have serious negative consequences.

Most of the year Norway has an electrical energy surplus because of waterpower. In short periods electricity must be supplied from the rest of Europe. Norway also is a significant exporter of oil and gas, as well as contributing to oil and gas activities globally. Companies partly owned by the Norwegian government operate in tropical rainforests without taking proper care of the interests of nature or indigenous people.

The exploitation of natural resources has resulted in the building of valuable competence. This competence should be used for new purposes. The oil and gas activities at seabed are based on the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Other activities like seabed mining are also planned. The intention of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, however, is that countries with a wide seabed should manage resources in a wise way in a global perspective. They should not prioritize fast exploitation for their own benefit alone.

Norway uses substantial resources in other countries to maintain and widen its affluence. Some types of food may not be problematic. The substantial import of meat and food for livestock and farmed fish, however, result in substantial climate- and nature footprints in other countries. The import of bioenergy is also problematic. The import of diverse consumer products also contributes to global emissions of climate gases and destruction of nature.

It is important to consider this seriously instead of betting on creative bookkeeping. Norway emphasizes buying climate quotas to get a positive climate accounting without having to reduce its own emissions or take any other actions. In a global perspective only buying oneself out of problems is not good enough. The systems that climate quotas are based on also need to be scrutinized seriously. The Norwegian climate goals are not closely related to real global climate emissions caused by the country’s consumption and affluence. The present debate related to the Norwegian climate goals means a serious derailment from the real challenges.

Norway tries to market some good measures. Number one is subsidies for electric cars resulting in relatively large share of electric cars. The size of cars, however, at the same time has increased substantially. Number two is the development of green technology, including solutions for carbon capture that, however, still are in a preliminary state. The city of Oslo has implemented some measures for reducing the use of cars.

To supply oil platforms with renewable energy from land is a costly cosmetic measure just for climate bookkeeping. The production of this land-based energy has other bad consequences for nature and indigenous people. It also masks a critical view on the on-going search for and production of oil and gas.

Norway has had a low consciousness regarding the total use of energy, energy efficiency and saving of energy. We are used to low energy prices and abundance. The consciousness regarding destruction of nature is also low. We think that we have an abundance of nature as well. The negative effects of global warming seem to be far away. Norway will not be hardest hit. We can for a while enjoy warmer summers.

We are used to having a welfare society. Economic inequalities are increasing but are still relatively low. The negative effects of global economic rules of the game are not influencing people’s lives. The Norwegian society is in fact profiting substantially from these rules of the game. The Norwegian Oil fund (The Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global) built over time by income from oil and gas production, results in substantial financial income and long-term economic security. The total global consequences of the financial system discussed earlier seem far away. Norway is a stronghold for climate scepticism. We need a better understanding of global consequences, together with a better societal understanding and societal prioritization. It is not all about “Norway LTD”.

For some reason or other Norway think of itself as a “moral great power”. The reality is very far from that position. To get democratic support for the necessary measures required would be the democratic acid test. It is crucial that a country in such a lucky position as Norway takes responsibility in a global world with joint challenges. Norway taking responsibility would really mean a lighthouse effect. It might first affect other rich industrial countries. It could also inspire developing countries to rethink their goals for development. Norway might contribute with broad competence.

Proposed measures for Norway:

• Planned and relatively quick reduction in oil and gas activities. Stop in searching for new resources.

• Stop for importing meat and animal feed, including feed for farmed fish, and stop for subsidizing parts of inland meat production.

• Total plan for producing energy, using energy, energy efficiency and saving of energy. Renewable energy and technological innovations must be parts of the plan. The plan must result in reduced climate footprint and destruction of nature.

• Total plan for reducing the use of cars, mainly private cars.

• A new regime for building regulations.

• Start work to clarify consequences for nature and climate of both private and public consumption.

• New political and administrative framework for practical protection of nature.

• Initiatives, and substantial professional support to a global regime protecting seabed. Mineral extraction and mining must very clearly be based on precaution principles.

• Initiatives, and substantial professional support to a global regime for managing fish resources and other live resources at sea.

• New principles for managing the oil fund

• Development and spread of technological innovations for renewable energy and carbon capture.

• Start a process for reorganizing work life.

• Start a process for reorganizing aid policy in developing countries.

The present search activities for oil and gas are in vulnerable arctic areas. To stop searching for new oil and gas resources represents a clear signal. Planned reduction and stop in production of oil and gas should be seen in a global perspective. Norwegian oil and gas activities globally must also be reconsidered. Measures regarding reorganization of work life must be part of the plan. Norway should continue being a technologically advanced country.

To stop importing meat and to stop general subsidizing of inland meat production implies substantially reduced consumption of meat. At the same time, however, small scale agriculture should be sufficiently sheltered because of local environments and cultural landscape. To stop importing feed for livestock and farmed fish will have major consequences for inland agriculture and fish farming. Fish farming in addition has serious challenges regarding animal welfare and local pollution. Fish farming in other countries with Norwegian participation should also be affected. Society must support the process of change. The consequences of these measures for other countries, including aid policy, must be considered.

Power suppliers and power-intensive industries make their prognoses. We seem to have an enormous need for more power as quickly as possible. Norway, on the other hand, has hardly been considering energy efficiency and energy saving. We will develop new solutions, and industry will produce goods that are needed. It is, however, necessary to prioritize within framework conditions set by nature and climate. The need for energy must also be seen in a wider perspective than for Norway alone. Renewable energy produced in Norway can reduce the need for energy produced by coal in other European countries. Technology for transferring and storing energy will become important. Norway has the competence to contribute to better overall management of energy.

Norway uses a national plan for transport. This is kind of a wish list for local communities, car users, and to some degree also users of railways and other public transport. It is only a matter of how far down the list we are willing to go. A total plan for reducing the use of cars must have a very different focus. A wide set of measures are necessary. Measures for urban development, substantially reduced building of new roads and parking lots, and better public transport must be part of the plan. Maintenance and improvement of existing roads for transport of goods should be prioritized instead of capacity and speed for private cars. We must also take care of nature when considering the need for roads and railways.

Building activities are important elements in climate accounting. The whole value chain from evaluating the real need for building to planning, implementation and maintenance should be scrutinized. This means a new regime for building regulations. Norway should also support research and development regarding building materials and methods that are better for climate.

Better systematic clarification of the consequences for nature and climate from both private and public consumption would be useful. Then the total environmental footprint in a lifelong perspective must be included. This will improve individual basis for prioritizing. It will also improve the understanding of measures at societal level limiting individual freedom of choice. Such a systematic clarification would have transfer value both to other rich industrial countries as well as developing countries.

Theoretically nature in Norway has legal protection. A far better framework resulting in practical protection is, however, badly needed. The recommendations from the UN-panel report regarding biological diversity is a starting point. The tools for practical implementation and enforcing are crucial. It is important that decisions are taken at a level of management, being able to evaluate matters holistically. The necessary knowledge basis, using precaution principles, and clear principles for decisions are important. All innovation is not technological innovation.

Norway has got comprehensive competence exploiting resources at seabed by its oil and gas activities. This competence should not be used in a race towards quick exploitation of diverse seabed resources for own benefit. Norway should instead be instigator for a knowledge-based and fair global regulations regime. Searching seabed for minerals is tried to be justified by the need for minerals for a “green shift”. The Norwegian search for minerals is also part of great power competition.

Norway has got comprehensive competence regarding management of fish resources and cooperation regarding fisheries. Norway should take initiatives for intensified global work for regulating global fisheries. They should prioritize the needed competence and resources for such work.

The Norwegian Oil Fund should prioritize specific well-planned projects beneficial for reducing environmental footprints. The fund must be willing to take higher risks. This might obviously go at the expense of requirements for profitability and will be much more work intensive. At the same time the fund should be an active participant in activities for better frameworks for the financial sector leading to abolition of tax havens. The oil fund should also be used for restructuring oil-based activities, including alternative use of competence and adjustments of competence.

Technological innovation should continue, including solutions for carbon capture. Work enabling large scale use should be prioritized. Processes should start towards restructuring work life. Such processes must include the consequences of the measures discussed above, basic societal priorities, and the more general matters discussed earlier.

Processes should be started regarding Norwegian aid policies. Developing countries should not automatically adopt the same development goals as Norway so far has had. Several of the measures discussed above for Norway should also include considerations of consequences for developing countries. In addition, Norway should contribute to the lighthouse measures for developing countries to be discussed below.

All these measures will imply considerable signal effects. Plans, however, must be implemented and followed up. Individuals will be significantly affected by necessary regulations, but the total welfare reduction is after all limited. Measures that directly affect individuals will be discussed in more detail below.

Today Norway basically is a well-functioning society. Most people are thriving. This is something that must be taken care of. Increased material welfare, however, is not the crucial ingredient making it a good society. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that we are part of a global world implying responsibilities. Today we are a much worse global participant than we would like to think.

The lighthouse measures proposed are demanding. They, however, also include many positive opportunities. There are needs for innovations in many areas, but within a new framework.

It is necessary to have a closer look at the degrees of freedom available for Norway to implement the measures proposed. Norway is closely interwoven in international agreements and systems. Such arrangements are fundamentally challenged by my proposals. A basic goal must be to influence the other participants in the international system to contribute.

The world, together with our perception of it, is changing alle the time. What once was seen as good and self-evident may after all need rethinking.